The Second Civil War of the US

Post Reply New Topic

Nothing patriotic about those f'ers.

Some people in Texas apparently feel that way.

Has any politician ever gotten away with violating the constitution?

Many on a daily basis. This is what happens when the surpreme court became political and avoids constitutional cases cause it's not popular with their party. As one judge said treating rights as second class rights compared to other rights.
The problem is the system of checks and balances has been so utterly corrupted. Both sides get away with all kinds of horrible and unconstitutional stuff every day. And we as the poeople have been pushed further and further out of ability to stop them by the same corrupt system. We need term limits on senators and repersentives but they are the only ones who can do it. They are literally the ones in charge of regulating themselves, what sense does that make. They unanimously agree to give themselves pay raises while cutting social security and healthcare. Cause you know $150,000 a year isn't enough for them. They make more then most Americans. But it's not enoug, this on top of their other income sources. Most are millionaires. The older ones get up to 300,000 a year. They so far separated from us the people there's no way they can truely represent us. We need term limits to get these people out, some have been in office for 60+ years. How can an 90 old elected in the 60s represent 20 year olds born in the 1990s? But they get re-elected cause they're familiar. Some of them feel so safe they do anything they want cause they life in safe districts. Ultimate power corrupts ultimately. If they don't fear being unelected then they feel they can get away with anything. Like say investing heavily in gun companies, then pushing gun bans, which drive up sales of guns. Therefore increasing their stock value. Netting them a nice profit.
Most senators and repersentives do similar stuff to gain money. You have to be wealthy to become one in a first place so it's no wonder what their tru intent is to make more money.

Most people on both sides are upset with the corrupt system from what I've noticed, most people don't trust or like politicians, but we are powerless to do anything and the politicians won't ever do anything that'll harm them. They have their own healthcare, body guards, they see themselves as better then those they repersent.

It'll all come crashing down eventually like roman, or the French royalty. People will only be oppressed for so much and so long.

We never had a Civil War. We did have a War Between States.

In my experience, lots of racists have a keen interest in making that exact distinction. The Noble Lost Cause, they call their revisionist lies.

Let me guess, the Southern States were the real patriots?

What's supposed to be the distinction?

The Confederacy was never a real county. It was a bunch of punkass crybabies who threw a hissy fit because they weren't allowed to torture black people anymore.

Their basic argument -- since there's no chance RV will come back to reply -- consists of denying any connection between the rebellion and slavery (despite the letters from the states to the feds stating that connection), and projecting upon the Rebs a Lost Cause mentality where they fought knowing they had no chance to win in order to preserve a better way of life. Robert E. Lee had this idea in mind at Appomattox, and wrote some clauses into the surrender to use later in furtherance of that story. He then set about promoting the idea as soon as he went home. It gets passed down from father to son in the South. They omit that the South drew first blood, as well.

At the time, a lot of Northern elites didn't want their rivals in the South to lose too much face over the incident. Very few people really wanted equal rights for black people. Once the political push for war reparations passed, and the states regained their sovereignty by complying with some specific conditions, the Southern Elites who remained could get back to business as usual, substituting prison work gangs and segregated employment for slavery. Hence, the tradition of overpolicing of black people.

There was nothing civil about it

Let me guess, the Southern States were the real patriots?[/quote
Oh the racist card played again.

The South was invaded by force . They defended states rights. Lincoln was not an abolitionist. Read his quotes about race/slavery. They are seldom included in history books. I wonder why?

Last edited by rvacountrysinger on 01 Aug 2017, 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That is a very patent and superficial analysis. And totally inaccurate.

Interesting, Robert E. Lee freed his laves in 1862. General Grant had slaves as well.

There were many freed Negroes in the South long before the "Civil War". Jefferson Davis said "We fight not for slavery, but for independence". That was written in 1864 in his personal letters. Meanwhile," honest Able" use the Emancipation Propaganda Proclamation, (which only freed slaves in the Northern states, btw), to conscript Negroes against their will to fight in the Union army. A strategic plan to gain military power and opposition. The North was responsible for the raping, pillaging, and burning that went on in many parts of the South, and Southern women left unprotected, were at the mercy of Federal terrorists.

What difference does it make which name that you call it?

Because a "Civil War" implies a war which is fought over control of the same government. Since the seceding states wanted to form their own government and their own country, it was not a Civil War. Also, in that time period, each state was viewed more as its own country, rather belonging to a tight nit collective, or central government. We still debate this issue today.

I know where you got all this false info. Using the same phrases gave you away.
http://www.snopes.com/confederate-histo ... ownership/
It is indeed the racist Lost Cause story.